| |
Thank you so much for providing such a thorough background. I had no idea
that this thread had so much depth.
Now I kinda feel sorry for this Mr. Moulton. The only reason why he
insulted Judes web-page was because he was harboring feelings of resentment
towards the community from a time when he himself was insulted…kinda tragic.
Jude was only an instrument by which Mr. Moulton could exert his inner
resentment upon. (Wrong place, wrong time scenario.) And the comments about
Mr. Jessiman were likely created for shock value and to gain attention.
(Childish at best.)
It’s too bad that instead of simply dismissing the initial comments it
festered inside of him. What’s worse is that apparently he really cares
about Lego and the community, (Or at one time he did.) because he was so
involved that he took the time to partake in a long ‘flame war’ and attempt
to clarify his stance on his home page.
(However, this is where the questions remain???)
Matthew Moulton
> > and thus ensued one of the more memorable flame wars in Lego Community history.
First off, I was completely unaware of all this before today.
Secondly, Mr. Moulton seams to be somewhat proud of his disturbance.
(A notable defense mechanism)
But what’s weird is this algid history of his.
Does he have an alter ego “Mad Hatter” or whatever, that goes around causing
problems with other web communities? If so, did he create all these issues
for fun? And did he ever really care about the brick or the community. If he
did I'm assuming he would have just moved on and ignored the 6 month old
comments rather than add to them!
To me this would have been all lost time…
too much fightin' , not enough buildin’ !
Thanks again Mark Wilburn, Maybe I'm just an idealist with Pollyannaic
views, but I never though this kinda stuff occurred within our community.
Well, I still have faith in Lugnet and the good people I talk to. Mayhap its
different in .castle, because we’ve got people like Shiri Dori and James
Brown that are perpetually positive and create a good environment of
conversation.
Sincerely,
--==Richard==--
In lugnet.space, A. Mark Wilburn writes:
> In lugnet.space, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > Man this thread is hard to follow!!! • ...
> > --==Richard==--
>
> Well, to the best that I could follow, it goes roughly:
>
> Matthew Moulton made disparaging remarks about someone's teaser
> http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=3842
>
> People got offended, points were made, things were said, basically a flame
> war erupted. What the arguments (that didn't involve "You suck" type
> arguments) seemed to roughly revolve around (I think): things people like
> /dislike about lugnet and how it's run. My 2 cents on Todd: if you don't
> like his rules or whatever, then don't complain that it doesn't suit you.
> It's his and Suzanne's site, after all.
>
> On the other hand, if you make suggestions for him to change things, that
> can't be too bad, can it?
>
> Somewhere within all that rubbish, some valid points were made on both
> sides, and Matthew even apologized to Jude. However, also along the way
> other people became incensed (with M&M and each other!) and I think Todd was
> basically flooded with requests to ban him. Which then happened.
>
> Why would he be so insensitive in the first place? He explained that he's
> this rude to us now (well, then) because the Lugnet community had been rude
> to him a long time ago.
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6609
>
> How is he posting again if he was banned? That's where the identiy thefts
> come in. Apparently he's been using other people's id's to post new
> messages. Which I can't imagine will sit well with Todd and Suzanne.
>
> Incidentally the offensive link to James Jessiman was removed, you're right.
> So it's not as if he can't be reasoned with... so what should I make of MM?
> I can't honestly tell. Too much on all sides was said in an emotional state,
> and it's really hard to tell how someone normally would act while they're
> po'ed. (Just look at road rage).
>
> Hope that summary helps, Richard. Although I'm not making any guarantees how
> accurate my take was on all this. That's as much as I could make out. It's
> very, very long to read through all of it (spanning multiple threads). Who
> would have the time????
>
> Yeah, I realize my 'Summary' is almost as long =p
> Mark W.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: I'm back... (Could someone clarify?)
|
| (...) ... (...) Well, to the best that I could follow, it goes roughly: Matthew Moulton made disparaging remarks about someone's teaser (URL) got offended, points were made, things were said, basically a flame war erupted. What the arguments (that (...) (23 years ago, 26-May-01, to lugnet.space, lugnet.cad, lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.publish.html)
|
59 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
